Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(10-10-2013 02:33 PM)kim Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 02:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  Won't be long til we figure out how to successfully grow a baby in a male subject. Then Muffsy and friends can volunteer and carry as many aborted babies as they like.

They won't be aborted - they'll be transferred. Consider I kind of like that idea.

If a woman decides to abort a pregnancy but the partner who donated the sperm wants this future baby, the consequence of their unprotected sex will be transferred from the female to the male.

FANTASTIC! Thumbsup

There you go Muffy; now men will have a turn at shitting out a bowling ball the glories of the biological bonding known as carrying to term and giving birth. Shy

Totally love rhe idea. Let them wreck their body, get hemorrhoids, fat ankles, horrible nausea, painful boobs, whacky hormones, and then can we throw in breast feeding? I'll be happy to just nudge them and say, "the baby needs you."


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
10-10-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
I guess that deserves a bit of consideration...

Hypothetical question for you Muffs:

If you were straight, successfully impregnated your female partner and she didn't want to keep it, would you offer your body up to carry the fetus to full term to then have a Cesarian and raise the child on your own, if science advanced enough to give you that option?

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
10-10-2013, 02:49 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(10-10-2013 01:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I personally see the grey area as highly relevant.

'Abortion on demand' if looked on as an absolute right, fails to address numerous issues.

Is the foetus simply a conglomeration of meaningless cells?
The foetus is a living human but that is beside the point. We don't need to dehumanise it in order to justify abortion. The choice is the mother's it impacts her body and her life. The choice has little impact on society so why would the choice be the government's?
(10-10-2013 01:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Should some form of counselling pre event be required?
Education and support is always welcome, just don't force it on people
(10-10-2013 01:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Are late term abortions essentially different from early ones?
Could be, maybe there are more risks to the mother, maybe an additional action needs to be made to kill the baby once outside the womb.
On the flipside, with late term abortions a woman can be making a decision with more certainty e.g. the baby may be known to have down syndrome rather than just a high likelihood as was thought in early term.
(10-10-2013 01:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Should fathers have some right in this issue?
The father's rights don't give him a socially acceptable forced control over the mother's body, he can force her to have an abortion, he can't force her not to.
(10-10-2013 01:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Is a nine months pregnancy an absolute disaster?
The reason to abort is not government's decision, its the mothers, its her body, her life.
(10-10-2013 01:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  What of serial pregnancies/abortions of unstable women?
So what? do you think she should be forced to be neutered?
(10-10-2013 01:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Are the many contraceptive methods available inadequate?
What has this got to do with abortion? Sure it would be great to improve the success rate of contraceptives.
(10-10-2013 01:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Is precaution my males and females adequate?
Obviously not, because people are also choosing abortions, so abortions are a desired option.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
10-10-2013, 03:19 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You were saying that law is created to protect rights, but now you are agreeing that law creates rights. If you hold onto both these positions then this is a circular position.

Such reductive conflation indeed sounds kinda circular. But of course, it's not what I said.

I said rights were societal (as in a social and legal construct), and somehow you took that to mean I was saying rights exist outside society (?). Perhaps that is due to my being insufficiently clear, and perhaps it is due to your being snarkily dishonest.

(09-10-2013 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Not arbitrary. The full DNA structure is formed. It isn't prior to this, thus prior it doesn't represent a unique individual. And it is growing, before that (without growth) can it be deemed as alive?

Alive insofar as the constituent cells are alive, of course.

I can create millions of unique genomes on a computer in an afternoon. But I doubt you are saying that merely a unique genome constitues life (for if so, do chimaeras count double Big Grin ?), so there are other hidden conditions there - is it that self-organising and self-replicating DNA constitutes life? Sure, why not.

Does it constitute human life? You say yes. I say no. I would define 'human' as requiring brain function. Since we call people 'dead' when that brain function ceases Tongue .

(09-10-2013 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What is it that I have a problem with?

Induced versus spontaneous abortion of undeveloped embryos.

(09-10-2013 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That isn't my argument.

It is indeed some people's argument. And it is a silly argument.

(09-10-2013 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My argument is:
I agree that it is a human. I agree that abortion is purposefully killing a human. But it is not my concern because it doesn't endanger me nor does it endanger my society. The unborn can't fight for itself, very few people are willing to put themselves in harms way to protect the unborn, thus we don't need the government to interfere.

That is not actually the same argument, so that right there's a bit of a fuzzy transition. I was discussing the nature of the act. You have substituted your prior argument as to preferred legality of the act.

Those who believe abortion is killing a human also tend to oppose permitting the act in general. You don't, as you'd already explained. I was not even addressing that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 03:46 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(10-10-2013 03:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You were saying that law is created to protect rights, but now you are agreeing that law creates rights. If you hold onto both these positions then this is a circular position.

Such reductive conflation indeed sounds kinda circular. But of course, it's not what I said.

I said rights were societal (as in a social and legal construct), and somehow you took that to mean I was saying rights exist outside society (?). Perhaps that is due to my being insufficiently clear, and perhaps it is due to your being snarkily dishonest.
"Snarkily dishonest" come on, I am being honest and upfront here. If you don't understand something I say, or think I am being dishonest then please ask me further questions.
I did not take it that you were saying that rights exist outside society. You said society and you also mentioned law so I assumed you were talking about societies set of legal laws, the restrictions put upon us by government. But in a later post you have introduced the concept of "inalienable rights". I have asked you to clarify what that is.
(10-10-2013 03:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Does it constitute human life? You say yes. I say no. I would define 'human' as requiring brain function. Since we call people 'dead' when that brain function ceases Tongue .
I call it human because that's what its DNA is, that of a human. Of course there is no perfect human, we are all only deviations, but the DNA is definately human rather than a different species.
Is it alive? Yes it seems to be, its growing not decaying. So it is a living human.
If it doesn't have brain function then it is a living human without brain function rather than not living human.
The difference between this early zygote, feotus and a human ear growing on the back of a mouse is that this zygote will likely naturally develop a functioning brain. In either case, living human or not, I don't care if you kill it. It doesn't impact me or my society.
With regards to legal law, I really don't see the importance of dehumanising a fetus or zygote.
(10-10-2013 03:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What is it that I have a problem with?
Induced versus spontaneous abortion of undeveloped embryos.
Again, so what. Why does it matter? I am happy for spontaneous abortion, and I am happy for mothers to induce abortion. It is not of my concern if she chooses to kill the human which is alive in her womb.
(10-10-2013 03:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Those who believe abortion is killing a human also tend to oppose permitting the act in general. You don't, as you'd already explained. I was not even addressing that.
That's correct. To me it seems disengenuous to try and dehumanise a foetus. It seems that a person is looking for a way to justify abortion. Dehumanising it becomes an arbitrary excercise because at what point does it then become human? Why even though its DNA is human is it not classified as human? Its certainly not a dog or a cat or a rock.
To me it sounds like people are playing a game of mental gymnastics in order to justify abortion as well as justifying a moral belief that people aren't to harm other humans.
I've heard these arguments before, Oh its not human, Oh, its not alive, Its just a collection of cells. It has no right to occupy a woman's womb. Some abort naturally therefore its not human. Well actually a decent amount of them don't abort naturally. Just because some do how does that equate to all of them not being human?
These arguments don't hold mustard with me. I don't need to dehumanise it in order to be prochoice.
But that's me. You probably have a belief in rights and morality and a belief that at some point a fully formed zygot/fetus is not human and somehow becomes human, maybe with the development of a functioning brain or a consciousness. IDK. But anyway, I think we have both expressed our own points of view on this and neither one of us is going to convince the other.
I am just hoping that you don't continue to think I am being snarky or purposefully dishonest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 04:16 PM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2013 11:45 PM by Ohio Sky.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(10-10-2013 12:24 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Well show me the statistics and I'll comment on it.
But again, I understand that the adoption service (and foster care as an extension of that) isn't perfect. But I still hold that the solution to that problem is improving the adoption service, not legalizing abortion.

Which are factors that need to be taken into account at the point of sex.
Job is one of the many factors. IMO, job is =/= to human life. It is sacrificing a human life, not a fetus, if the reason for your abortion is so you can keep your job.
This is what I mean by I don't think the reasons are good enough any more.
Potential job loss is one of the consequences you need to take into account.

Statistics on what? These children are missing. By definition, they can't be accounted for. How does one gather statistics on what happened to people who can't be found? I did link to several articles already covering cases of missing children and human trafficking.

How does one take into account what is going to happen during their pregnancy when they may have no idea what will happen during pregnancy? I had no idea when I decided to have my first child that it would mean I would have to quit my job and spend 9 months sick as fuck unable to get out of bed. Pregnancy has a lot of unforeseeable complications.

I agree with most of what you're saying here. Most abortions can and should be prevented. I don't agree with people using it as a means of emergency contraceptive because they didn't plan ahead. But to fix everything that is wrong with this scenario, someone would have to create a birth control that is 100% effective, and safe for everyone. Such a thing does not exist. We would have to overhaul every system that comes into play here, from the healthcare industry that makes it ridiculously expensive to have a child, to the adoption and foster care programs that don't give these children what they deserve and charge way too much to adopt, to recovery programs for mothers dealing with substance issues, and find some way to compensate women for their loss of pay when they are unable to work due to pregnancy. If you have the power or ability to fix all of these things, I'll back you. Until then, all we can do is fight for better sex education and better access to contraceptives so that women can make informed and responsible decisions regarding their reproductive health, and hopefully minimize the need for these services. But even if we could fix all these things, there would still be a small percentage of cases where an abortion is simply the best option, in my opinion.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 04:25 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
I seem to have lost the ability to post anything and actually have it show up. Sad

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 04:26 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(10-10-2013 03:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Just because some do how does that equate to all of them not being human?

I thought the argument was about whether or not it counts as a "person," not whether or not it counts as human. Of course it's human. Hard to argue that it doesn't have human cells or the potential to grow into a baby.

But I'd agree that you don't need to apologize for or otherwise demonize abortion or justify it.

I saw a macro on facebook yesterday that said something about "no one is pro-abortion, some people just think it's the woman's right to choose." I disagree. I am pro-abortion. For any reason. For no reason at all. I don't think the woman needs to justify it to anyone because it's in her body.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(10-10-2013 04:26 PM)amyb Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 03:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Just because some do how does that equate to all of them not being human?
I thought the argument was about whether or not it counts as a "person," not whether or not it counts as human. Of course it's human. Hard to argue that it doesn't have human cells or the potential to grow into a baby.
I'm not sure what a person is as opposed to a human.
"person" seems like some kind of abstract conceptual term, like a "soul" or a "mind" thus any definition is going to be arbitrary with no ability to objectively verify.
(10-10-2013 04:26 PM)amyb Wrote:  I saw a macro on facebook yesterday that said something about "no one is pro-abortion, some people just think it's the woman's right to choose." I disagree. I am pro-abortion. For any reason. For no reason at all. I don't think the woman needs to justify it to anyone because it's in her body.
But of course you are not going to force abortion on anyone, so you are only pro-abortion in a specific circumstance that you yourself choose to have one.
In the scheme of rules on society, you are pro-choice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: